What do you think?
Rate this book
Svici
Qu'est ce qu'un dispositif?
J'appelle dispositif tout ce qui a, d'une manière ou d'une autre, la capacité de capturer, d'orienter, de déterminer, d'intercepter, de modeler, de contrôler et d'assurer les gestes, les conduites, les opinions et les discours des êtres vivants. Giorgio Agamben Les dispositifs où se jouent désormais nos existences – du téléphone portable à la télévision, de l'ordinateur à l'automobile – ne se trouvent pas face à l'homme comme de simples objets de consommation. Ils transforment nos personnalités. La question devient alors : quelle stratégie devons-nous adopter dans le corps à corps quotidien qui nous lie aux dispositifs ?
64 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
26 people are currently reading
835 people want to read
About the author
Giorgio Agamben
231 books975 followersGiorgio Agamben is one of the leading figures in Italian and contemporary continental philosophy. He is the author of Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life; Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive; Profanations; The Signature of All Things: On Method, and other books. Through the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s he treated a wide range of topics, including aesthetics, literature, language, ontology, nihilism, and radical political thought.
In recent years, his work has had a deep impact on contemporary scholarship in a number of disciplines in the Anglo-American intellectual world. Born in Rome in 1942, Agamben completed studies in Law and Philosophy with a doctoral thesis on the political thought of Simone Weil, and participated in Martin Heidegger’s seminars on Hegel and Heraclitus as a postdoctoral scholar.
He rose to international prominence after the publication of Homo Sacer in 1995. Translated into English in 1998, the book’s analyses of law, life, and state power appeared uncannily prescient after the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC in September 2001, and the resultant shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Provoking a wave of scholarly interest in the philosopher’s work, the book also marked the beginning of a 20-year research project, which represents Agamben’s most important contribution to political philosophy.
In recent years, his work has had a deep impact on contemporary scholarship in a number of disciplines in the Anglo-American intellectual world. Born in Rome in 1942, Agamben completed studies in Law and Philosophy with a doctoral thesis on the political thought of Simone Weil, and participated in Martin Heidegger’s seminars on Hegel and Heraclitus as a postdoctoral scholar.
He rose to international prominence after the publication of Homo Sacer in 1995. Translated into English in 1998, the book’s analyses of law, life, and state power appeared uncannily prescient after the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC in September 2001, and the resultant shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Provoking a wave of scholarly interest in the philosopher’s work, the book also marked the beginning of a 20-year research project, which represents Agamben’s most important contribution to political philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
November 1, 2017
Agamben's etymological journey into and then subsequently rebirthed out of the Foucauldian term dispositif was insightful not only in thinking about Foucault but also on Agamben's own projects - I am thinking primarily of his work in Homo Sacer.
I would, however, seek to propose an inverse relation of sacrality and profanity in the machinic-relations of apparatuses and ourselves, in the process of subjectification and desubjectification. This is pretty poorly stated, but this is not the place to elaborate on my own thoughts necessarily.
the second essay on friendship was interesting, especially the closing section on Aristotle, and the primacy of friendship as con-sentuality, an existential being-with or a between of selves that is primordial and in a sense nonconceptualizable. A (sans-)fundamental proximity or relationality with the other that grounds our existence (in an abyss).
The last essay on contemporaneity was my least favorite. In many ways it was just an elaboration of an idea from Nietzsche, with an exigesis of a poem, theological conceptions of the kairos, some astronomical metaphors/figuative concepts, and some talk about fashion thrown in as well. But overall it was the least interesting of the three, in my opinion.
This book is of great interest to those making their way into Agamben's corpus. It is extremely short, however, so be careful about how much you spend acquiring it!
I would, however, seek to propose an inverse relation of sacrality and profanity in the machinic-relations of apparatuses and ourselves, in the process of subjectification and desubjectification. This is pretty poorly stated, but this is not the place to elaborate on my own thoughts necessarily.
the second essay on friendship was interesting, especially the closing section on Aristotle, and the primacy of friendship as con-sentuality, an existential being-with or a between of selves that is primordial and in a sense nonconceptualizable. A (sans-)fundamental proximity or relationality with the other that grounds our existence (in an abyss).
The last essay on contemporaneity was my least favorite. In many ways it was just an elaboration of an idea from Nietzsche, with an exigesis of a poem, theological conceptions of the kairos, some astronomical metaphors/figuative concepts, and some talk about fashion thrown in as well. But overall it was the least interesting of the three, in my opinion.
This book is of great interest to those making their way into Agamben's corpus. It is extremely short, however, so be careful about how much you spend acquiring it!
April 17, 2021
Destaco fundamentalmente el texto sobre el dispositivo, porque es didáctico y aclarador. Para escudriñar el concepto, recurre a sus fuentes (Foucault, Hyppolite, Heidegger, la teología de la economía), las interrelaciona y, finalmente, articula una definición propia sobre la noción de dispositivo. Parte de esa definición se contextualiza en el presente, concluyendo que los dispositivos del ahora actúan por medio de procesos de desubjetivación. El texto termina siendo una crítica al capitalismo, a través de una mirada no exenta de tecnofobia: "Aquel que se deja capturar en el dispositivo teléfono celular, cualquiera sea la intensidad del deseo que lo ha movilizado, no adquiere por ello una nueva subjetividad, sino solo un número a través del cual eventualmente puede ser controlado".
Read
July 25, 2023متن برای مقاله اول یا همان آپاراتوس چیست
مقدمه میتواند به تعریف و شناخت کلی مفهوم آپاراتوس کمک کند اما نهایتن این مفهوم سادهسازی نخاهد شد و با اضافات آگامبن این مفهوم فوکویی درکش سختتر خاهد شد
مقدمه میتواند به تعریف و شناخت کلی مفهوم آپاراتوس کمک کند اما نهایتن این مفهوم سادهسازی نخاهد شد و با اضافات آگامبن این مفهوم فوکویی درکش سختتر خاهد شد
January 9, 2025
Bah c’etait juste un truc de ouf !
Faut juste pas sauter une ligne sinon tu comprends pas ce bouquin de 47 pages seulement… Ok faut juste capter vite fait les principes de sub et desub.
Très sumpa la généalogie du tere oikonomia.
J’aime bien sa position par rapport a foufou, genre il assume complètement que il veut se faire passer pour un foufou numéro 2, mais dès qu’il a saisit complètement la pensée de Michel concernant le dispositif, « moment ou il devient impossible de distinguer l’auteur et l’interprète », il poursuit sa reflexion sur son compte et la ca devient interessant avec l’arrivée du principe de profanation des objets
Juste, ptit truc pas super, développe plus tes exemples Giorgio, dire que le stylo est un dispositif c’est bien mais utilise ton stylo pour en dire plus je sais pas moi.
Et files moi aussi des nbp pour que je puisse en savoir plus…
Mais alzou j’te met five stars l’ami
Faut juste pas sauter une ligne sinon tu comprends pas ce bouquin de 47 pages seulement… Ok faut juste capter vite fait les principes de sub et desub.
Très sumpa la généalogie du tere oikonomia.
J’aime bien sa position par rapport a foufou, genre il assume complètement que il veut se faire passer pour un foufou numéro 2, mais dès qu’il a saisit complètement la pensée de Michel concernant le dispositif, « moment ou il devient impossible de distinguer l’auteur et l’interprète », il poursuit sa reflexion sur son compte et la ca devient interessant avec l’arrivée du principe de profanation des objets
Juste, ptit truc pas super, développe plus tes exemples Giorgio, dire que le stylo est un dispositif c’est bien mais utilise ton stylo pour en dire plus je sais pas moi.
Et files moi aussi des nbp pour que je puisse en savoir plus…
Mais alzou j’te met five stars l’ami
May 29, 2023
This is about as good as it gets if you follow the "left critic of biopolitics" path. I really wish ol' Giorgio weren't apophatic, and after covid a lot of the stuff on camps sounds...strange, but one really can't escape Agamben. Standing there, motionless, at the end of history, telling us that this time the Christianity will be good. Perhaps this time we can go beyond his Benjaminian melancholy.
Probably not, but a girl can dream.
Probably not, but a girl can dream.
October 25, 2025
Me encantó qué chulo qué interesante!
November 8, 2017
This book is so short, and its essays such sketches, that its price tag is its most shocking attribute. The three essays range from very good to alright, but none is particularly original. The title essay is a hyper-compression of the author's own The Kingdom and the Glory, and will almost certainly be the most satisfying (both theoretically and programmatically) (for better and worse) thing GA ever pens: lots of cookies here for his anarcho- and Tiqqunist audiences. It is for this reason also the most adaptable to the zine-form, where, at a price of a dollar to free, it is much more at home than in this object barely larger than the stack of 20 dollar bills Stanford wants for it! "Contemporary", apparently the text of a lecture to introduce a seminar of GA's, reads like a not-particularly-exciting gloss on Benjamin's theses on history and Foucault's genealogy/archeology. And/or on GA's own method. "Friend" is the hardest to summarize but also, despite some very interesting nuggets, the most lackluster.
August 24, 2013
One of the most fascinating things I have read in a while. It's short and reasonably accessible too. Agamben makes use of Foucault's definition of the apparatus (or dispotif, the network of institutions, technologies, knowledge systems, etc that exercise power within the social body of our society) and traces its use over time to establish a relationship between modern organization of the world with the early Christian church.
The Holy Trinity (Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) needed the concept of "apparatus" to explain (and produce) the administration of God's will through the divine economy. Agamben’s uses the concept of the apparatus for describing the process of shaping and arranging of human subjects and offers "profanation" as a way of engaging in hand-to-hand combat with apparatuses that control, form, and direct our lives.
I still haven't the clue what he is really suggesting we do though by "profanation". Crime?
The Holy Trinity (Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) needed the concept of "apparatus" to explain (and produce) the administration of God's will through the divine economy. Agamben’s uses the concept of the apparatus for describing the process of shaping and arranging of human subjects and offers "profanation" as a way of engaging in hand-to-hand combat with apparatuses that control, form, and direct our lives.
I still haven't the clue what he is really suggesting we do though by "profanation". Crime?
October 19, 2016
Va de paire avec "Le corps utopique, les hétérotopies" de Foucault
April 18, 2018
Urgente y necesario. Empezemos por las bases para desmontar el sistema.
August 22, 2017
Para Foucault, hay ciertas preposiciones que deben ser tenidas en cuenta al pensar la cuestion del poder.
el poder no es algo que se posea, se adquiera, se tenga, arranque o comparta, algo que se deje escapar o se conserve. El poder se ejerce a partir de innumerables focos, y resulta del juego de relaciones móviles, no fijas, y no igualitarias. No es una esencia, sino que mueve y permuta constantemente.
las relaciones de poder no son externas, con respecto a otro tipo de relaciones (procesos económicos, relaciones de conocimiento, relaciones sexuales) sino que se hayan en estas relaciones inmanentemente. Constituyen los efectos inmediatos de las desigualdades, las particiones y los desequilibrios que se producen, y recíprocamente, son las condiciones internas de tales diferenciaciones. Las relaciones de poder no se hallan en posicion de superestructura, con un simple papel de prohibición o reconducción, desempeñan, allí en donde actúan, un papel directamente productor.
Que el poder viene de abajo. No hay una oposición binaria entre dominados y dominantedores, en el principio de las relaciones de poder.hay que representarse relaciones de fuerza múltiples que se forman y actúan en los aparatos de produccion, las familias, los grupos restringidos y las instituciones, sirven de soporte a amplios efectos que recorren el conjunto el cuerpo social. Estos forman una linea de fuerza general que atraviesa los enfrentamientos locales y los vincula. Las grandes dominaciones son los efectos hegemónicos sostenidos continuamente por la intensidad de todos estos enfrentamientos.
las relaciones de poder son intencionales y NO subjetivas. Si son inteligibles no se debe a que sean el efecto, a partir de cierta causa, de una instancia distinta capaz de explicarlas, sino que estan atravesadas de parte a parte por un calculo. No hay poder que se ejerza sin una serie de miras y objetivos. Pero ello no significa que resulte de la opinión o voluntad de un sujeto individual, con su racionalidad. Ni los grupos que controlan el estado, ni los que toman las decisiones económicas más importantes que administran el conjunto de la red de poder que funciona en una sociedad no son los móviles directos. La racionalidad del poder es la de las tácticas a menudo muy explícitas en el nivel en que se inscriben que, encadenándose unas con otras, solicitandose mutuamente y propagándose, encontrando en otras partes sus apoyos y su condición, dibujan finalmente dispositivos de conjunto. Existe un carácter implícito de las grandes estrategias anónimas, casi mudas, que coordinan tácticas locuaces cuyos inventores o responsables frecuentemente carecen de hipocresía.
que donde hay poder hay resistencia, pero esta nunca esta en posicion de exterioridad respecto al poder. Uno esta necesariamente en el poder, no es posible escapar de él, no hay un exterior absoluto en relación a él, sin embargo, hay que tener en cuenta el carácter estrictamente relacional de las relaciones de poder. No pueden existir más que en función de una multiplicidad de puntos de resistencia. Estos representan el papel de adversario, de apoyo. Los puntos de resistencia estan presentes en todas partes dentro de la red de poder. No existe un Gran Rechazo, pero si hay varias resistencias que constituyen excepciones, casos especiales, posibles ,necesarias, improbables, concentradas, violentas, irreconciliables, pero que no pueden existir sino en el campo estratégico de las relaciones de poder. Frecuentemente nos enfrentamos a puntos de resistencia móviles y transitorios, que introducen en una sociedad lineas divisorias que se desplazan rompiendo unidades y suscitando reagrupamientos, abriendo surcos en el interior de los propios individuos, cortadolos en trozos y remodelándolos, trazando en ellos regiones irreductibles. Asi como la red de las relaciones de poder concluye por constituir un espeso tejido que atraviesa los aparatos y las instituciones sin localizarse exactamente en ellos, así tambien la formación del enjambre de los puntos de resistencia surca LAS estratificaciones sociales y las unidades individuales, y es sin duda la codificación estratégica de estos puntos de resistencia lo que torna posible una revolución, un poco como el Estado reposa en la integración institucional de las relaciones de poder. (P.p 91-93)
https://ladisidenciaontologica.wordpr...
el poder no es algo que se posea, se adquiera, se tenga, arranque o comparta, algo que se deje escapar o se conserve. El poder se ejerce a partir de innumerables focos, y resulta del juego de relaciones móviles, no fijas, y no igualitarias. No es una esencia, sino que mueve y permuta constantemente.
las relaciones de poder no son externas, con respecto a otro tipo de relaciones (procesos económicos, relaciones de conocimiento, relaciones sexuales) sino que se hayan en estas relaciones inmanentemente. Constituyen los efectos inmediatos de las desigualdades, las particiones y los desequilibrios que se producen, y recíprocamente, son las condiciones internas de tales diferenciaciones. Las relaciones de poder no se hallan en posicion de superestructura, con un simple papel de prohibición o reconducción, desempeñan, allí en donde actúan, un papel directamente productor.
Que el poder viene de abajo. No hay una oposición binaria entre dominados y dominantedores, en el principio de las relaciones de poder.hay que representarse relaciones de fuerza múltiples que se forman y actúan en los aparatos de produccion, las familias, los grupos restringidos y las instituciones, sirven de soporte a amplios efectos que recorren el conjunto el cuerpo social. Estos forman una linea de fuerza general que atraviesa los enfrentamientos locales y los vincula. Las grandes dominaciones son los efectos hegemónicos sostenidos continuamente por la intensidad de todos estos enfrentamientos.
las relaciones de poder son intencionales y NO subjetivas. Si son inteligibles no se debe a que sean el efecto, a partir de cierta causa, de una instancia distinta capaz de explicarlas, sino que estan atravesadas de parte a parte por un calculo. No hay poder que se ejerza sin una serie de miras y objetivos. Pero ello no significa que resulte de la opinión o voluntad de un sujeto individual, con su racionalidad. Ni los grupos que controlan el estado, ni los que toman las decisiones económicas más importantes que administran el conjunto de la red de poder que funciona en una sociedad no son los móviles directos. La racionalidad del poder es la de las tácticas a menudo muy explícitas en el nivel en que se inscriben que, encadenándose unas con otras, solicitandose mutuamente y propagándose, encontrando en otras partes sus apoyos y su condición, dibujan finalmente dispositivos de conjunto. Existe un carácter implícito de las grandes estrategias anónimas, casi mudas, que coordinan tácticas locuaces cuyos inventores o responsables frecuentemente carecen de hipocresía.
que donde hay poder hay resistencia, pero esta nunca esta en posicion de exterioridad respecto al poder. Uno esta necesariamente en el poder, no es posible escapar de él, no hay un exterior absoluto en relación a él, sin embargo, hay que tener en cuenta el carácter estrictamente relacional de las relaciones de poder. No pueden existir más que en función de una multiplicidad de puntos de resistencia. Estos representan el papel de adversario, de apoyo. Los puntos de resistencia estan presentes en todas partes dentro de la red de poder. No existe un Gran Rechazo, pero si hay varias resistencias que constituyen excepciones, casos especiales, posibles ,necesarias, improbables, concentradas, violentas, irreconciliables, pero que no pueden existir sino en el campo estratégico de las relaciones de poder. Frecuentemente nos enfrentamos a puntos de resistencia móviles y transitorios, que introducen en una sociedad lineas divisorias que se desplazan rompiendo unidades y suscitando reagrupamientos, abriendo surcos en el interior de los propios individuos, cortadolos en trozos y remodelándolos, trazando en ellos regiones irreductibles. Asi como la red de las relaciones de poder concluye por constituir un espeso tejido que atraviesa los aparatos y las instituciones sin localizarse exactamente en ellos, así tambien la formación del enjambre de los puntos de resistencia surca LAS estratificaciones sociales y las unidades individuales, y es sin duda la codificación estratégica de estos puntos de resistencia lo que torna posible una revolución, un poco como el Estado reposa en la integración institucional de las relaciones de poder. (P.p 91-93)
https://ladisidenciaontologica.wordpr...
Read
August 22, 2020
This is a painting one of my friends showed me a couple of months ago. “The Apostles Paul and Peter on the Road to Martyrdom by Giovanni Serodine,” he said, “Agamben says the two apostles in this painting are so close that there’s no way they can see each other hence a perfect allegory for friendship.” I took a look. It reminded me of I Corinthian 13:12, also by Paul, “For now we see in the mirror dimly but then face to face.” “That’s an interesting take,” I told him, “Though that makes me wonder if the painter too had I Corinthian 13:12 in mind and if yes, did he mean to show Paul finally coming face to face and still unable to see? Is this about Paul being tried with doubt close to his end?” I forgot all about the painting a little while later until a few days ago when I decided I’d want to take a closer look at it and maybe write up on. I couldn’t remember the name of the painting though so I asked my friend about it. He couldn’t remember it either but he could tell it’s mentioned somewhere in What is an Apparatus? by Agamben. And that’s how I came across this book!
Serodine’s painting is briefly mentioned in The Friend, one of the three short essays of this book. The three essays are each an attempt to define an important term; Apparatus, a key term in Focault’s philosophy, that roughly refers to the network of structures and mechanisms that serves a necessary function for practicing power, the Friend, the philos, a term so incredibly close to philosophy and yet so conceptually distant, and the Contemporary, a term perhaps useful to understand our relationship with (the philosophical texts of our) time. Among the three, friend remains the least defined term. Serodine’s painting in fact, is brought up as an example to portray the near impossibility of the conceptualization of friendship.
Each essay is at least slightly interesting but neither one is stunning. For Apparatus, Agamben presents an interesting trace: oikonomia, the Church’s final resort for explaining the administration of divine power. He also decides that everything which has a potential to control and orient our lives may be considered as an apparatus and that man is in desperate need of a strategy to deal with them. Restoring these apparatus to the free use of man or Profanation, Agamben claims, is the only counter-apparatus that would do the job. Yet, he fails badly to really explain what this really means or how it’s even doable.
Almost half of The Friend is spent on emphasizing the impossibility of its conceptualization and the other half on repeating a passage by Aristotle. In What is Contemporary?, the third essay, Agamben first, asserts that being contemporary does not mean coinciding with one’s time or even agreeing with it but it’s more about establishing a unique relationship with that. He then relies mostly on The Century, a poem by Osip Mandelstaum, to draw a few more properties for his definition and further elaborate it.
There are not a ton of original ideas in this short book, far less indispensable ones. Yet, at times one comes across interesting points discussed here and there that one might be able to pick, question or build up on, perhaps similar to how that painting has lingered and transformed in my mind. Otherwise, you might as well do without this one and go pick up a denser more auspicious book that offers a better chance of proving didactic.
May 19, 2022
These texts left me very ambivalent towards Giorgio Agamben, in part because of the great deal of uncertainty he himself treats his own concepts. I don’t expect him to clearly elucidate every concept in a short text like What is an Apparatus?, rather these concepts become uncertain or vague in the very manner which Agamben wants to use them. Agamben places Foucault’s dispositif in an ‘elevated’ context of transhistorical importance – as that which together with life-as-such constitutes the conflicting poles between which subjectivity arises. Agamben wants to construct a framework by which he can posit a long durée of western political history – as still fundamentally grappling with questions of Aristotelian Christian theology.
However, in doing so he removes the precision so valued by Foucault himself. In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault explicitly rejects the interpretation of discourse analysis or genealogy applied by Agamben (as summarized in the relevant chapter of Agamben's Philosophical Lineage); that is, finding in certain concepts a monad by which the entire mentality of an age is contained and can be illuminated. This is not to say I reject Agamben’s project of reinterpretation or having philosophers like Heidegger, Benjamin, and Foucault interact in a manner particular to his own interests. My objection is that the generality by which Agamben treats his concepts risks blunting their critical edge. The project of a critique of western philosophy risks entrenching that which it seeks to critique, positing the real existence of such a discrete coherent tradition spanning from Aristotle to our present. The generalization of the term apparatus as to include everything from language to cellphones begs the question for why previous apparatuses produce subjectivities and contemporary ones supposedly don’t; especially if as Agamben claims we’ve yet to leave the political paradigm in place since Athens and Rome? I find this to be a very relevant question for the ability of Agamben’s system to resist recuperation and to correctly distinguish contemporary problems within the capitalist state; a question made more relevant by Agamben’s own direct associations with the far-right over Covid.
However, in doing so he removes the precision so valued by Foucault himself. In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault explicitly rejects the interpretation of discourse analysis or genealogy applied by Agamben (as summarized in the relevant chapter of Agamben's Philosophical Lineage); that is, finding in certain concepts a monad by which the entire mentality of an age is contained and can be illuminated. This is not to say I reject Agamben’s project of reinterpretation or having philosophers like Heidegger, Benjamin, and Foucault interact in a manner particular to his own interests. My objection is that the generality by which Agamben treats his concepts risks blunting their critical edge. The project of a critique of western philosophy risks entrenching that which it seeks to critique, positing the real existence of such a discrete coherent tradition spanning from Aristotle to our present. The generalization of the term apparatus as to include everything from language to cellphones begs the question for why previous apparatuses produce subjectivities and contemporary ones supposedly don’t; especially if as Agamben claims we’ve yet to leave the political paradigm in place since Athens and Rome? I find this to be a very relevant question for the ability of Agamben’s system to resist recuperation and to correctly distinguish contemporary problems within the capitalist state; a question made more relevant by Agamben’s own direct associations with the far-right over Covid.
September 23, 2019
An illuminating description of and elaboration on Foucault's notion of the "dispositif," or "apparatus." I first learned about this concept from the "Geopolitics and Development" book I read, which analyzed the apparatuses surrounding development in a systemic fashion. The "apparatus" is one of the conceptual contributions to political thought that I hope stands immortal in the history of thought far in the future, like Aristotle's "polis," Hobbes' "Leviathan," Marx's "ideology," Gramsci's "cultural hegemony," Michels' "iron law of oligarchy," and countless more.
What is an apparatus and why is it so enlightening? This is not something I really care to go into detail about here, as this would take a great amount of time and Agamben has done a better job than I ever could, but in the words of Foucault:
"What I'm trying to single out with this term is, first and foremost, a thoroughly heterogeneous set consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral, and philanthropic propositions-in short, the said as much as the unsaid. Such are the elements of the apparatus. The apparatus it self is the network that can be established between these elements... by the term "apparatus" I mean a kind of a formation, so to speak, that at a given historical moment has as its major function the response to an urgency.The apparatus therefore has a dominant strategic function... I said that the nature of an apparatus is essentially strategic, which means that we are speaking about a certain manipulation of relations of forces, of a rational and concrete intervention in the relations of forces, either so as to develop them in a particular direction, or to block them, t0 stabilize them, and to utilize them. The apparatus is thus always inscribed into a play of power, but it is also always linked to certain limits of knowledge that arise from it and, to an equal degree, condition it. The apparatus is precisely this: a set of strategies of the relations offorces supporting, and supported by, certain types of knowledge."
Agamben submits his interpretation of Foucault's idea and provides some elaboration by utilizing some of his own contributions to political thought.
What is an apparatus and why is it so enlightening? This is not something I really care to go into detail about here, as this would take a great amount of time and Agamben has done a better job than I ever could, but in the words of Foucault:
"What I'm trying to single out with this term is, first and foremost, a thoroughly heterogeneous set consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral, and philanthropic propositions-in short, the said as much as the unsaid. Such are the elements of the apparatus. The apparatus it self is the network that can be established between these elements... by the term "apparatus" I mean a kind of a formation, so to speak, that at a given historical moment has as its major function the response to an urgency.The apparatus therefore has a dominant strategic function... I said that the nature of an apparatus is essentially strategic, which means that we are speaking about a certain manipulation of relations of forces, of a rational and concrete intervention in the relations of forces, either so as to develop them in a particular direction, or to block them, t0 stabilize them, and to utilize them. The apparatus is thus always inscribed into a play of power, but it is also always linked to certain limits of knowledge that arise from it and, to an equal degree, condition it. The apparatus is precisely this: a set of strategies of the relations offorces supporting, and supported by, certain types of knowledge."
Agamben submits his interpretation of Foucault's idea and provides some elaboration by utilizing some of his own contributions to political thought.
April 26, 2021
<>
<>
<>
Giorgio Agamben
<>
<>
Giorgio Agamben
December 14, 2017
Testo agilissimo e di facile comprensione che partendo dalle riflessioni di Foucault sul "dispositivo" approda e considerazioni originali.
Per dispositivo si intende una rete di pratiche o/e oggetti. In Foucault tale termine è imparentato con quello di "positività", che legato alla sfera religiosa indica le pratiche rituali che impongono il dogma e i comportamenti giusti da seguire. Quindi il dispositivo implica una serie di pratiche che obbligano a compiere determinate azioni. Il dispositivo è legato al discorso del potere.
Queste pratiche ben precise inducevano un processo di soggettivazione: il soggetto fondava la sua identità e la sua appartenenza al gruppo attraverso le pratiche del dispositivo. Oggi, invece, si assiste al contrario: la rete è diventata così densa di pratiche e oggetti da implicare una desoggettivazione. Infatti, il dispositivo "elettronico" anziché spingere l'uomo a compiere determinate azioni, lo immobilizza rendendola spettatore, mero contemplatore delle azioni che appaiono sullo schermo. Quindi, il problema del dispositivo è un problema di tipo politico, in una società che non riesce più a creare le proprie pratiche affinché la rete possa produrre un proprio soggetto.
Per dispositivo si intende una rete di pratiche o/e oggetti. In Foucault tale termine è imparentato con quello di "positività", che legato alla sfera religiosa indica le pratiche rituali che impongono il dogma e i comportamenti giusti da seguire. Quindi il dispositivo implica una serie di pratiche che obbligano a compiere determinate azioni. Il dispositivo è legato al discorso del potere.
Queste pratiche ben precise inducevano un processo di soggettivazione: il soggetto fondava la sua identità e la sua appartenenza al gruppo attraverso le pratiche del dispositivo. Oggi, invece, si assiste al contrario: la rete è diventata così densa di pratiche e oggetti da implicare una desoggettivazione. Infatti, il dispositivo "elettronico" anziché spingere l'uomo a compiere determinate azioni, lo immobilizza rendendola spettatore, mero contemplatore delle azioni che appaiono sullo schermo. Quindi, il problema del dispositivo è un problema di tipo politico, in una società che non riesce più a creare le proprie pratiche affinché la rete possa produrre un proprio soggetto.
Read
April 11, 2020Chapter 1: What is an Apparatus?
Separating divine being and governance. Leaves us with the governance. Governance needs a subject though (object perhaps rather) as per definition we separated it from it's being, and so we get us, the subjects in our struggle with the governance/dispotif/ apparatus.
But be careful because government can lead to catastrophic failure so make sure you question the apparatuses (hand-to-hand profanation) to reclaim them for yourself, change them, find new ones, understand their influence etc.
Also cool is that the creation of apparatuses is part of being human. We are aware of our environment, or more precisely our separation/distance from it, this introduced boredom ('the capacity to suspend this immediate relationship with disinhibitors') but also the Open, our awareness of the possibilities, which we then crowd with instruments i.e. apparatuses because we want to further nullify our connection to animalistic nature, to maximise our Open. We want to enjoy being.
I would say from this there is no way to exist without apparatuses, or 'iron cages of the spirit'. But what if we don't embrace conscious awareness? Devoid ourselves of governance. Is this (lack of) freedom better than a life of iron cages?
Separating divine being and governance. Leaves us with the governance. Governance needs a subject though (object perhaps rather) as per definition we separated it from it's being, and so we get us, the subjects in our struggle with the governance/dispotif/ apparatus.
But be careful because government can lead to catastrophic failure so make sure you question the apparatuses (hand-to-hand profanation) to reclaim them for yourself, change them, find new ones, understand their influence etc.
Also cool is that the creation of apparatuses is part of being human. We are aware of our environment, or more precisely our separation/distance from it, this introduced boredom ('the capacity to suspend this immediate relationship with disinhibitors') but also the Open, our awareness of the possibilities, which we then crowd with instruments i.e. apparatuses because we want to further nullify our connection to animalistic nature, to maximise our Open. We want to enjoy being.
I would say from this there is no way to exist without apparatuses, or 'iron cages of the spirit'. But what if we don't embrace conscious awareness? Devoid ourselves of governance. Is this (lack of) freedom better than a life of iron cages?
May 29, 2018
3 essays, of which I was most interested in the first: “What is an Apparatus?”. Agamben creates a categorical criteria between: 1. Living things, and 2. The Apparatuses which seek to control them (with subjectivity in between). Capitalism, he suggests, is the accumulation and proliferation of apparatuses. He also describes the move from discipline to control. In the disciplinary society, apparatuses were used to create subjectivities (the creation of individuals), whereas in the control society, there is only a desubjectification and no subjectification. The individual is disseminated and turned into a numerical value. Thus, politics, as an apparatus, no longer considers individual movements (workers movement, bourgeoisie, etc)., but is only concerned with the perpetuation of itself--a machine with left and right poles. To escape this apparatus, Agamben suggests we cannot simply seek to destroy it or to use it for ourselves (as we might see in accelerationism or Negrism), but instead posits the possibility of Profanation (the sacred object becoming profane).
July 15, 2020
La metodología propiamente agambeana de rastrear genealógicamente los conceptos en el tiempo puede resultar tan estimulante como poco productiva, ya que en algunos momentos pareciera que ve cierta transparencia en el origen de los conceptos que determinaría su significado actual, cosa que puede traer más de un problema. Pero, en este caso, no se detiene en la genealogía y explicación del concepto de "dispositivo" foucaultiano, sino que también se lanza con una ampliación de su significado y de las consecuencias que trae para la vida práctica. Lo bueno de estos ensayitos es que esboza los aspectos más políticos de la "batalla" contra los dispositivos, además de la amistad y la función de la Iglesia en su temporalidad.
June 3, 2021
In only a few pages, Agamben can create a lot of sparks.
"On the contrary, the contemporary is the person who perceives the darkness of his time as something that concerns him, as something that never ceases to engage him. Darkness is something that - more than any light - turns directly and singularly toward him. The contemporary is the one whose eyes are struck by the beam of darkness that comes from his own time."
"On the contrary, the contemporary is the person who perceives the darkness of his time as something that concerns him, as something that never ceases to engage him. Darkness is something that - more than any light - turns directly and singularly toward him. The contemporary is the one whose eyes are struck by the beam of darkness that comes from his own time."
December 22, 2023
I will straight up say I haven't read enough Foucault to follow many of the finer points of the titular essay, but it was still something of a useful introduction to the concept of an apparatus, and the other two essays (The Friend and What Is the Contemporary) were just excellent. The latter has actually really stuck with me in it's discussion of poetry. Delightful!
April 4, 2020
Potser el discurs sobre el dispositiu queda una mica obsolet, però compte amb l'afegit de 'La Iglesia y el Reino' dels Argumentos Anagrama. Temps messiànic per defugir el leviatan occidental, quin encert.
Read
April 1, 2022Not me logging FMK svici like I log youtube videos and 5 minute short films on Letterboxd.
October 8, 2022
Es una lectura bastante densa debido a continuas referencias a filósofos clásicos, creo que es necesario un glosario de términos propio para poder entender la lectura.
January 6, 2023
Hace una buena genealogía del término para acabar diciendo que deberíamos ser monos con manos prensiles sin capacidad de desarrollar tecnología. O algo así.
Read
July 3, 2023Fånga dagen genom att fånga natten, ljuset i natten.
April 8, 2024
Conciso y claro, a excepción del hecho de que a Agamben parece que se la pela citar en francés, en griego, en latín, incluso en hebreo, sin traducirlo.
November 2, 2025
Read for school :)
November 24, 2025
en vrai ça va
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews